Consequences

OK - so I've given up trying to send an attachment - maybe there's a problem. Here is my lengthy comment. Have patience & enjoy - I welcome any responses:

The King & I debate 2/11/04 (Tim Markes)

IÂ’ve read ALL the correspondence surrounding the King and I on/off stage drama and have relevant experience plus a few comments, which might even kick it along a bit?

In the UK, I was for several years on the small board of a very successful Light Operatic/Musical group, which raised many thousands of pounds Sterling for charity from each musical it staged. We hired both Musical and Artistic Directors and also were faced with the unavoidable task of firing both (on different occasions). Directors and musicians were paid. Performers on stage were not paid – no matter what their pedigree, which was often impressive. We produced an excellent detailed programme packed with paid advertisements from many (mainly local – South London) businesses. Other money raising techniques were used, which there is no space to explore here. None of the many charities who benefited asked for any measure of artistic control and I feel sure that such a request would have been refused. The idea that an office holder of such a charity might try to influence who appeared on stage would have been unthinkable. And yes – I was also a very modest performer, always aiming for the chorus, but invariably asked to a little bit more.

I arrived in Perth with my partner Michele Galazowski, an experienced Lieder, Operatic singer and violinist in ’91. Our first ‘gig’ was on stage with the wonderful Alyson Fife (Lady Thiang in K&I) as “Patience” for the G&S Society. Immediately relevant to this debate, however, is that both of us have been directed by Neroli Burton and Musically Directed by Gloria Underwood in productions produced by Pat Barton – Gloria & Pat being clearly highlighted by David Bugden as persons ‘without the assistance (of whom), The King & I wouldn’t have evolved.’ Pat & Gloria were two (of the original four?) partners in Omnibus Productions. Thanks to Gloria, a spur of the moment audition also resulted (to my astonishment) in my being cast as understudy to the leading role of a musical directed by Neroli.

As an instrumentalist I have spent SEVERAL MONTHS in the pit (paid & unpaid) under various MDs - including Justin - and had a brief spell as MD with Playlovers with a VERY talented cast – including one of your correspondents. Naturally my performance in all these roles was replete with imperfection, but as a true ‘pro’ I endeavoured to spread the glitches as thinly as possible over the run! Michele joined the King and I orchestra at the Sitz Probe and played joint first violin. I knew a few orchestra members (but NOT the MD).

My final declaration of ‘interest’ is one which I would willingly do without. It is that I arrived at His Majesty’s Theatre for the 2nd week Friday night performance in a wheelchair. As some of you may know, I have Motor Neurone Disease, a considerably less well-funded related charity than MS [Here in WA, they have a State Director, receptionist and 2 part time carers – certainly no ‘Senior Manager, Marketing & Sales Development’].

I thoroughly enjoyed the show. Tears flowed freely (it doesnÂ’t take much these days); the principals, set, costumes, orchestra and chorus were more than OK. Sean Yeo as the King was so convincing and commanded the stage.

Prompted by some of your correspondents and backed by my personal experience, however, I do have some specific comments, as follows:

Pro-Am: I can’t see this anywhere on the programme. I can only assume this was part of the MS marketing ‘spin’ to the media and thus to the paying punters, who would surely expect Professionals on stage or in the orchestra (or both). I know it’s a tough definition, but a professional performing actor/musician, in my view, is someone who earns the majority of his total income from that occupation. So, for example, a full time professional music teacher is very unlikely to be up to the performance and sight-reading standard of a permanent WASO player (and there were none of these in the orchestra). Musicians were paid, but certainly not professional rates and some were paid more than others – just another example of poor judgement or inexperience by (presumably?) the MS management. One of the reasons a pit orchestra musician is ‘paid’, by the way, is not because he/she is necessarily ‘more professional’, or even makes fewer mistakes than those on stage; they just tend to have considerably more musical commitments throughout the year than a typical actor – some of them paid, some not. A payment goes some way to ensure that the person is secured for the run.

Just because a CAST member gets paid a certain sum (e.g. in lieu of lost Saturday arvo income) or gets a free Ad, surely doesn’t suddenly turn them into Professional performers or, for that matter, transform the ‘amateur’ production into a PRO-AM event! It’s one thing to expect a performer to sacrifice his social life for 3 months (& his HAIR in some cases), but if he is clearly losing substantial income, the producers have a dilemma. And - in the unlikely event of the ‘management’ deciding to sack the understudies and require the main cast to appear in their place, it seems quite clear that they are obligated to meet any additional expenses arising?!

Emphasising that this description says absolutely nothing about quality of performance, it seems to me that “The King and I” was clearly an AMATEUR production and if “Les Mis” has a similar profile, it would surely be wise to make the status of the production clear – whatever the professional status of back stage crew, lighting, sound, sets etc. or direction. The very best productions you will ever see in this state bar NONE, by the way, are totally amateur – at WAAPA/ECU, Bradford St., with a 20 plus piece orchestra and incredible performances – do yourself a favour?!

Understudies/Alternate Cast: My strong impression of Underwood/Barton productions is that Understudy roles are really an Alternate Cast. Hence the policy, which I think they have used many times in the past, of reserving, for the complete Understudy/Alternate cast, certain performances, which tend to be perhaps less well attended and less critical. Personally, IÂ’m sure it is motivated by the utmost goodwill and desire to give those, who may have only missed the top spots by a whisker, the chance to prove how fantastic they really are?! Just imagine, by the way, how many additional rehearsals you would require to ensure that no principal cast member met an understudy for the first time on stage - if understudy performances were spread throughout the (short) run?

My brief understudy experience (of a leading role) for Neroli required me to walk/talk through the role in parallel to rehearsals of the main cast (I also had a very minor role in the main cast). I recall having to push quite strongly for a separate rehearsal; it was not in the original rehearsal plan. I wonder if this Understudy cast had similar problems? Perhaps wisely, I was never promised a ‘performance’, so it would have required Alf Hurley to literally break a leg, before I had to face the music!

Main vs Alternate (that’s what I’ll call it) cast: I’ve seen Joe Isaia on stage in other productions, so it doesn’t surprise me in the least that there is absolutely universal approval in these columns for the Alternate cast performances on BOTH the first Saturday matinee AND the Wednesday evening; one or two clearly expressing a preference for this cast over the Main cast, many judgements being made BEFORE the Alternate cast were told that their services were not required for the final Sat matinee. Indeed, the only truly damning criticism has been for the Saturday matinee AUDIENCE!. Ironically, I’ll bet that the producers & ‘marketing’ have to take some responsibility for the audience content of these dates (coach parties etc.).

Both CAST and ORCHESTRA are supposed to be following the MD, by the way - not each other!. Slipups can be triggered by any combination of actions by many members of the company, including sound balance, foldback, mikes, props, lighting, crew, (MD?) etc. It is very short sighted to pin the fault on just the cast.or orchestra and really shows what a devastating effect a person with limited experience in authority can have.

Dave Bugden/Neroli Burton/Pat Barton/Producer?/Profits! It seems clear from the programme “our inaugural theatre production” “The MS Society’s production” and David Bugden’s title of “Executive Producer” that MS takes responsibility for the production. It is equally clear, from other comments in the programme, that they relied heavily upon advice & guidance and ‘work’ from Pat Barton & Gloria Underwood, hardly surprising in view of the fact that David Bugden apparently has no significant experience of theatre performance whatever. Neroli has been criticised for not ‘standing up to’ the undoubted pressure from Bugden to ‘sack’ the Alternate cast for the final Sat matinee. What, I wonder, was the precise contractual arrangement (if there was a written contract). Did MS actually have artistic control over the production? [God forbid!] Or was the decision influenced by nothing more than ‘force of personality’. So far, we have nothing but silence from the key players?!

Whether he had the legal authority or not, it does seem as though the Bugden decision was a really major mistake from every point of view. In these columns, there have been many plaudits & not a single significant criticism of the Alternate cast. Several pertinent questions arise which do not seem to have been resolved. What performances did Bugden actually see? Did he watch the first Alternate cast performance on the first Saturday matinee? Did he actually see the Wednesday pm performance at all? Did he personally know any of the so-called complainants following the Wednesday pm show? How many ‘important people/friends’ did he have attending the final Sat Matinee?? Finally, he apparently took the decision to axe the ‘alternate/understudy cast’ without consulting (see Rylands email) the Musical Director of the show??!! I wonder if he got the agreement of the (Artistic) Director, Neroli Burton or if (like Joe), she was informed that she had ‘no choice’?

$20 ‘Administration’ fee: So – MS is doing you a favour by allowing you to take part in the production? Just another tactless example of poor judgement, particularly when some of the cast perform professionally many times during the year (e.g. Justin). Little wonder that Joe could not stomach this item, when he had paid for 32 Gold Reserve tickets?!

Profits to MS: I am somewhat loath to disclose this last piece of inside information and I would welcome any MS authority, who could categorically correct me? IÂ’m afraid that I do have it on very good authority that all profits from K&I will go towards financing the next production (Les Mis) with no proceeds from this production going to the benefit of people with MS, which is very sad.

David Bugden: I do not know this gentleman; I expect he is a wonderful family man, likes animals, kisses babies etc. All of us who perform are familiar with major BOOBOOs, but Dave’s BOOBOO is, frankly, up there with the greatest – it will be talked about for years. But, to be charitable, there is no reason why Marketing Directors are somehow immune from the mistakes that afflict us as performers - but I do think we usually apologise??!. Apparently this MS marketing director, with or without authority, but clearly without any consultation with the Musical Director, managed to effectively sack a cast, which had been clearly acclaimed for their two public performances and were no doubt responsible to a degree for filling the seats at the promised third (and final) performance.

“Les Mis” is a hugely popular show. I heard that some 500 people applied to be in the cast of an earlier production. So it may be that Bugden might survive – even if not a single member of the King and I cast wished to continue the relationship with MS. If the “Les Mis’ production actually goes ahead, it would seem highly desirable that artistic control responsibility should be clearly defined and if any element of this remains with MS, they should appoint someone who has relevant experience. Based on what we have read in these columns and seen on stage, it seems extremely unlikely that Bugden would fit the bill. My own view, for what it’s worth, is that MS would be well advised to arrange an exchange with SA so that Bugden can gain some valuable work experience. In fact, to quote his own words (as reported by Greg Ross 23-10-04) this seems – ‘with no malice whatsoever and a heavy heart, ….the only sane commercial decision possible’?!

In spite of what has happened, I naturally hope that MS benefits substantially from its foray into fundraising from live theatre. One day, perhaps, we can do the same for MND. Unfortunately my days on stage or in the pit are over.